03-11-2021, 10:18 PM
(03-11-2021, 09:49 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Do you doubt that he'll make buckets of money, if the project is built?I don't doubt that he'll make a profit, just not as much profit as would have been expected when there was a larger project with more units to sell.
As for the 'baking in' of variances to the process overall, to the general citizen in the neighbourhood, the perception is that developers are forever pushing the limits in order to maximize their investment. The tradeoff for the neighbours is the potential for adverse affects to their immediate future. This could include things like reducing setbacks to zero so a neighbour will now see a blank wall at the edge of their property, or having their sidewalks reduced to narrow wind tunnels when a building is pushed right to the sidewalk rather than leaving a setback that leaves the option for wider sidewalks or multiuse trails.
Yes, there is a housing crisis. But removing all barriers and suggesting that cities must accept whatever is proposed simply for the sake of making more space is a huge loss to the community. If every developer were to come forward and commit to 20% of all their future buildings to be targeted to geared-to-income or other forms of affordable housing, then that might make their excuses for variances more palatable. If every existing landlord committed to converting 20% of their existing stock as affordable housing sprinkled among the existing buildings would be another great start. Even, at the very least, committing to maintaining the same number of affordable housing units that their new construction is displacing would be a great start. Accepting a variance that commits to moving affordable housing (or any other kind of municipal goals) elsewhere than the proposed development site does nothing more than leave the existing neighbourhood poorer for the loss.